lör 2007-04-07 klockan 04:00 -0500 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
Of course this person is entirely wrong if the client doesn't
Accept-Encoding: chunked
which is exactly the logic we test.
So why is there a dependency on keep-alive being enabled?
Regards
Henrik
signature.asc
Description:
On 4/8/07, Henrik Nordstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why is there a dependency on keep-alive being enabled?
If keep-alive is disabled for the connection, then Connection: Close
tends to be more efficient anyway... -- justin
* Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Thus my question is, why when Apache was updated to support HTTP/1.1
did it just preserve the HTTP/1.0 type behaviour and not in cases
where it could automatically apply chunked transfer encoding to the
response, apply it?
Hmm, you may get something wrong here. The
On 07/04/07, André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Thus my question is, why when Apache was updated to support HTTP/1.1
did it just preserve the HTTP/1.0 type behaviour and not in cases
where it could automatically apply chunked transfer encoding to the
response,
lör 2007-04-07 klockan 09:18 +0200 skrev André Malo:
Hmm, you may get something wrong here. The httpd does apply chunked encoding
automatically when it needs to. That is in keep-alive situations without
given or determineable Content-Length.
Why doesn't it do it in all other cases? My
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The person on the WSGI list is more or less claiming that there would
be no harm in a web server always applying chunked transfer encoding
to a response which doesn't specify a content length
Of course this person is entirely wrong if the client doesn't
* Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
lör 2007-04-07 klockan 09:18 +0200 skrev André Malo:
Hmm, you may get something wrong here. The httpd does apply chunked
encoding automatically when it needs to. That is in keep-alive
situations without given or determineable Content-Length.
Why doesn't it do
On 4/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The person on the WSGI list is more or less claiming that there would
be no harm in a web server always applying chunked transfer encoding
to a response which doesn't specify a content length
Of course this
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Chunking support on a response is implicit if you claim HTTP/1.1
support. You don't need to signal it with Accept-Encoding (you can, I
guess). IOW, an HTTP/1.1 client should always a expect a server may
give back chunking... -- justin
Of course, my bad.
